PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[BamberBridgeBlue]

Martin Lipton making stuff up, surely not....

Ha ha, fucking brilliant! I know the game, he knows the game, you know the game. Stop being silly. As good as an admission its bollocks.

 

[applecentral]

I read a tweet I think from a journo saying “City are trying to drown the PL in paper” Wish I could remember who it was.

If we drown them in toilet paper, I’d be happy.

 

[OntarioBlue]

Wow, somebody at last saying it as they see it.

This fella should be invited to a match and be given a free day at ours, that piece he written was absolutely brilliant.

Nailed it.

Ha, he’ll probably get fired by The Sun for not following the party line.

 

[cheekybids]

This exposes a wider point around sports journalists and their sources. Historically, when it was a profession which operated under an ethical code of sorts, when a journalist quoted an anonymous source, it was reasonable to conclude that it was bona fide. These sources served a genuine purpose, as it meant people with inside knowledge of a given situation could provide a degree of insight without revealing their identity. The sanctity of a journalist not revealing their sources meant people could whistle-blow without the consequences that would flow from that if their identity was disclosed. This meant information got into the press that would otherwise not. It wasn’t perfect, because people with an agenda could exploit it, but the public could read the article and accept that the source was genuine, even if the motives of the source were not.

These days, given the cesspit that sports journalism has descended into in an unedifying chase for clicks, I think most of these quotes we see are completely made up. My default position is that everything these cunts say is rooted in running a particular click-driven narrative and they will do anything, including making quotes up, to support that narrative.

So now, whenever I see an anonymous quote from a sport journalist, I simply assume it’s made up, and discount it, which is the only sensible and logical approach to follow.

I think that’s down to professional pride & tough editor judging his reporter on getting it right. They knew if they got it wrong the public wouldn’t trust them & they’d lose readership.

Now, well we know the standards now.

 

[mancity2012_eamo]

Cause without an apostrophe is perfectly acceptable in informal British English.

It's the same with the word ain't.

Just cause and just ‘cause, are quite different though.

 

[mancity2012_eamo]

Brilliant - who is she? That’s how people should be interviewed.

I can’t say how I know, but it was the flip flop that spilled the beans.

 

[mccity]

Just cause and just ‘cause, are quite different though.

Trust me, the banner was perfectly fine.

You shouldn't have used a comma, btw ;)

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

But it's true what they say about you!

Good to see you’re still taking a close interest.

 

[Innsbruckblue]

Nope, the papers are not wrong. It is libel when broadcast.

So if I say something slanderous, and someone records me on their phone before uploading it to YouTube, it becomes libellous?

 

[Johnny Mars Bar]

Can anyone sum up the embargoed Pep stuff or point me in direction of a post done already explaining it?

It’s on YouTube.